Rolled Out On: 1/30/2008 2:34 PM

Robb, you are doing a fine job.

Ostensibly, I wouldn't be opposed to background checks per se. I only have a couple of problems with the concept:

1) Once government gets its nose into the tent, it is impossible to get them back out. Requiring background checks necessitates forms and recordkeeping. Background checks and forms 4473, although specifically precluded by law from doing so, have become a de-facto gun owner registry in this country. That is the antithesis of liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, since the bad guys don't go through the hassle of background checks and paperwork, the registry is only of law abiding gun owners. It is completely useless for the purpose of disarming criminal...it's only practical use is in disarming the law abiding when it comes to that.

2) First background checks were used only to identify felons who are not authorized to own firearms...then mental patients were added...substance abusers...misdemeanor domestic assaulters...all those seemed logical and good right? Now they want to add people who are only SUSPECTED to be "bad" people. There is a movement to have people on the "terror watch list" added to prohibited persons. What kind of country do we live in when rights can be abridged on a SUSPICION? Once the government gets a power, no matter how benevolent that power may initially be intended, the government immediately sets to work on expanding that power...to the detriment of the citizens.

3) Background checks add cost to the transaction. It may not be much, but the $15 to $25 a dealer can charge to effect a third party transfer is not insignificant...especially when you're talking about a single mom with two jobs and raising three kids who is just trying to buy a used $75 Hi Point to protect her family from her stalker Ex-husband. Why should the government EVER institute a fee for the "privilege" of exercising a right?

Finally, one question that I have yet to have anyone even attempt to answer. I am routinely ignored when I ask this on the anti-gun blogs and forums:

By what rational definition can passing a law that would make an act illegal under one specific circumstance, that would remain perfectly legal under any other circumstance, be classified as "closing a loophole?"

Rolled Out On: 1/30/2008 4:43 PM

Howdy Brandon.

Let me say first that I am very thankful when I stumble across those who wish to debate the issue of gun-control in a respectful manner. Some people on both sides of the issue can and do react emotionly in an arena where logic should prevail.

I would like to share with you my own perspective on the right to keep and bear arms and in doing so, I will respond to your comments and would love the reciprocity.

First some background on me so you have a little insight to my perspective.

I'm 36 years old, have 36 firearms and have been shooting for 30 years. My worst firearms related accident to date is when a compressed internal spring came loose and hit me in the forhead while I was dissassembling one of my rifles. I have a concealed carry permit and use it. I do not like to hunt personally but will never interfere with those who do enjoy the sport. I would much rather shoot wild life with a camera than a firearm. My main reason for owning firearms is threefold:

1. Self defense
2. Collecting those which have some history behind them.
3. Target shooting in an informal competitive nature.

My main peeve with those who advocate for more gun-control laws is that those laws target inanimate lumps of wood, polymer and steel. The only way to reduce what you call gun violence is to reduse a living breathing person's desire to commit violence.

Within the law of supply and demand, you can not decrease the supply by limiting the supply. You must limit the demand. Take the war on drugs as an example. Limiting the supply may cause the price of illegal drugs to increase but if there is still a demand for those drugs, people will supply the pipe line.

This is a common ground I wish to see come to light. We both want to see the crime rate go down, I just don't care wether or not that those crimes are committed by a person with a gun or any other weapon, including bare hands and feet. My position is that criminals should be punished under the full extent of the law and that law abiding citizens should not have to have their rights trampled on because of the actions of our societies criminal element.

Do you have to prove that you've never had a DUI before you can buy a car?

Do you have to prove that you've never been convicted of arson before you buy gas or matches?

Do you have to prove you've never been convicted of rape before you buy condoms?

But I do have to prove that I've never committed a multitude of crimes before I buy a firearm. When I got my concealed carry licence, I was fingerprinted, photographed and had a background check performed at the local county level, the state level, the federal level and then run through Interpol and had an international check to make sure I had committed no crimes in any country on this earth. If I do commit a disqualifing crime, my licence will be revoked. Do you think I should be able to buy a firearm and simply display my licence in lieu of the background check?

Thanks for reading.

Rolled Out On: 1/30/2008 8:18 PM

Sadly, I don't have time to put in as thoughtful a response as the rest of you, but I thought I could at least add to a few points that were made here.

A big thing to consider is that laws should exist to protect me from others, not from myself. I am not endangered by someone not wearing their seatbelt. I am at no more risk from someone who is smoking pot than I am from someone who is drunk. Actually, the former is probably safer, because potheads don't tend to be nearly as prone to fight as drunks can be.

I'd also like to address one comment thrown around a lot by the gun-rights community a great deal.

all it would have took was one other person with a firearm to stop the tragedy

That's not really true. All the situation in Norris Hall really needed was one person who was willing to fight back, by any means. For years, I never went anywhere without a folding knife in my pocket (a habit from years of UNREPs in the Navy). Had I been in one of those rooms when Cho went on his killing spree, I would have made damn sure I took him with me, and the size of the classrooms there would have made it likely that I could have done so.

The real reason Cho was able to kill so many people was that society has done a bang up job of teaching people to just be submissive when they're being attacked. All over the news you hear "just give the attacker what he wants and you'll be fine". In the schools, students are taught that defending yourself is just as bad as being the one that starts a fight. Few people really have the will anymore to fight for their own lives, and that is what killed those poor 32 souls.

Rolled Out On: 1/31/2008 11:41 AM

Hmmm, laughingdog brings up a good point about how people are taught to simply submit to an attack instead of defending yourself.

It would be interesting to see a study/survey of these people where the main focus would be to measure how much of that pacifism would be affected if the attack were being perpetrated by a non-human animal.

Example...Would you fight to defend your life against a dog attack?

Would you fight to defend your life from a human attack or try and reason with your attacker and beg for mercy?

If the answers are different, ask yourself why?

Rolled Out On: 1/31/2008 6:50 PM

Recently in Shreveport, La. a woman fought off a knife wielding attacker intent on rape. He had entered her home, she fought back and ran him off. She received several puncture wounds to her hands. This could have easily gone the other way.

Her attacker has not been captured. He is free to attack someone more submissive. And next time he just may have a gun, since his shiv work wasn't up to par.


My question to Brandon is this; When has defenselessness ever been a security measure?


I would point Brandon to all the government led genocides accomplished only after the target populations were disarmed "for their own safety". In those instances, only the criminals and the government had any security.

Then I would point him to Switzerland, which recently has passed some gun control as a place to watch. He will see an increase in violence in Switzerland once the predators get used to the new rules.

In spite of the preceding paragraph, Switzerland and Israel have traditionally been societies relatively free of domestic violence, yet they are the two most heavily armed societies in the world. And their citizens are not reatricted as to types of firearms they may carry. It is not uncommon to see an Israeli girl in the blush of youth eating at a pizza parlor with a fully automatic weapon slung over her shoulder. The Swiss are more circumspect but traditionally have been a dangerous people to assault.

I used the issue of domestic violence above not in the familial sense it has come to mean here, but in the national sense. There is much violence in Israel, but it is perpetrated by people who send their children to blow themselves up with explosives among the children of the Israelis. Why do they do this? Because the Israeli citizen is armed and they dare not go there themselves to commit violence. Ergo, they send their dimmer children.

Yet there is not much violent crime in Israel for the same reason. Israelis are openly armed.

It is a fallacy that just because one carries a firearm he is more likely to engage in harmful or violent acts directed at others. A man's character doesn't change just because he is armed. Neither does a predator's, but his predilection for acting on his predator's instinct is greatly curbed when he faces almost sure harm himself.

repeat: Defenselessness is not a security measure.

If it were, there would be no dead people at Virginia Tech.

Rolled Out On: 2/3/2008 1:23 PM

Wow, you guys are good. This is one of the first on-going debates about gun control vs. the reduction of homicides via firearms that I have found anywhere. My congrats’ to both parties.

You both seem to have similar goals: The reduction of violent homicides where a firearm was the vehicle of choice.

I believe the first step is to identify those of whom that use firearms to commit crimes that result in homicides. Clearly, there are statistics available that identify these individuals.

Next would be to analyze the data available on who these people are, do they have any prior criminal history, where did they acquire their weapon and what should be done to reduce homicides from this group of people.

If you have an agreement that the reduction of homicides is your goal, and you agree that addressing the significant source of these homicides is suitable, now what changes in existing laws or new laws would reduce homicides.

As the statistics show, more gun laws have not been effective in reducing homicides. But what would? More education? More police in that area? Longer sentences when convicted of crimes? Find solutions to this problem that you both agree to and then expand from there.

When both sides of this issue can agree on particular solutions, then we will have true benefits to reducing the number of homicides nationally. Each side of this debate needs not try to convert the other’s thinking, but find common ground for agreement on solutions.

For example, do both parties agree that longer prison terms for people committing armed robbery is good? How long?

Write about your agreement of identifying the problem, what are the root causes and then what solutions will have the greatest impact on the identified problem.. Thanks